So I had a look at Huckabee. I like that he seems more realistic on immigration that some of the candidates. What do you other republicans think? Is there anything about him that would kill the deal? Besides that guy he paroled who killed someone?
posted
I heard the story on the radio and went looking for an online source, and Fox News was probably the 4th place I checked. What are the alternate sources of polls out of Iowa? (Honestly doesn't know.)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For any Iowa poll to be accurate regarding the caucus results they have to have some way of evaluating how likely the person is to attend the caucus. A poll of "average Iowans" is meaningless in terms of predicting who will actually win.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Could you cite some evidence for this fairly startling claim? The Register is the source of almost every poll I've seen on the Iowa race. MSM citations to its polls:
In short, the Register is most likely the best (although, because of the caucus structure, less accurate than similar polls in other states) source of public opinion data about the Iowa caucuses.
quote:"A poll of LIKELY Iowa caucus voters is showing a new leader on the Republican side."
This should tell you why the story is not mainstream
The phrase "likely voters" is not indicative of that a poll is a push poll. It is extremely common in pre-election polling. It does introduce a certain amount of inaccuracy, but it is a well-accepted practice in the field. If the inclusion of "LIKELY" is a disqualifying element for a poll, then most such polls are so disqualified.
For the record, the story is mainstream and has been covered in a variety of online mainstream pages.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just not AOL, MSN or wikipedia. To be fair, it was probably on wikipedia but I caught it after Giuliani's folks.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I just reacted to a) the poll representing a clear leader who is, according to the cited poll, 5% ahead of the closest competitor. I doubt the poll has a margin of error less than 5%.
b) it's being reported, according to Pooka, only by the Fox website, run by people I deeply distrust.
c) my extreme annoyance at these meaningless polls that claim to represent, well, anything close to reality.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The DesMoinesRegister poll is just as valid as any other. All polls are massaged to reflect the leanings of those whom their head pollsters feel will be the most LIKELY voters. Since the Register poll is the most recent, it's also probably the most valid.
1) Republican operatives (eg RobertNovak, RushLimbaugh, PatRobertson, etc) have consistently hammered governors and ex-governors for mistakes made by their state parole boards. 2) Huckabee approved several luxury taxes, eg on gasoline and dog groomers, to raise money for Iowa's (share of) funding of eg school lunches and SCHIP. Raising taxes and saving children are two more big NO-NOs that Republican operatives whale upon. They're already attacking Huckabee for "raising taxes" and "not supporting the President"s veto of child health care.
posted
It's not just the Des Moines Register, Rasmussen has Huckabee up 3 points, 28/25 over Romney, with everyone else way back in the pack. But in both polls I believe the plus minus is 4 points, which makes both polls basically a dead heat. The American Research Group has Romney up by one point in this week's poll, also with a plus minus of four points.
Also keep in mind that polling for Iowa is historically rather unreliable. In the last presidential election, 40% or so of Iowa Caucus voters made up their minds in the last week before the vote, which means a large percentage of people are still undecided, possibly. Also, the numbers change depending on who you ask. When you ask people that participated in the last caucus, Huckabee wins, when you ask people who didn't but plan to this time, Romney wins. But in every poll I've read for the last week they are statistically tied, which I think is a miracle for Huckabee in itself. It's critical for him to win Iowa. Giuliani may be way behind there, but that's also because he's comparatively spent little time and money there, instead focusing on other states, where he is nationally dominant.
And remember what the Iowa caucus is. It's hundreds of small groups of people gathering together to argue with each other for hours on who should be voted for, and a lot of people tend to change their mind on the day of voting. Polls are all about smaller candidates making surprising jumps, which they hope to snowball into momentum (like Huckabee and Obama) and polling leaders trying to cement their leads (like Giuliani and Clinton). It's all about who can distort the numbers the best for the media.
Now when we get out of the primaries into the presidential race, you'll start to see the numbers as being far, far more accurate, though right now most of the leading candidates facing off against each other are statistical ties, that will change in six months.
But what will be really interesting it watch the polls implode after Iowa. Depending on who wins, if say it's Huckabee (maybe Giuliani) or Obama (or Edwards), they'll get a huge bump in the polls in New Hampshire (we'll have to wait and see how Wyoming's convention matters), if it's Clinton, she'll solidify her hold on the frontrunner's position and be a LOT harder to dislodge. If it's Romney, he'll see a bump in national polls, but he already leads in most of the early voting states. He needs to use them to parlay that into a better position on Super Tuesday, where Giuliani has a massive lead.
posted
The unusual thing is (IMHO) that when I listen to talk radio (Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity), they constantly down-play or outright ignore Huckabee. Every time a caller calls in to say "how come you're not talking about Huckabee?" they will respond with something that indicates they don't think he has a snowball's chance.
So it is surprising that he is gaining in popularity (if he is) without this very vocal right-wing media side.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republican Caucus in Iowa has a tendency to come in to the right of the party nationally. Pat Buchannan and Pat Robertson both had respectable showings in the Iowa Caucuses. Buchannan actually beat Bush in Iowa in '88. So it's possible for Huckabee to be gaining in the polls related to the caucus and national commentators still not think he's a viable candidate.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only read it, but my impression was that Romney and Giuliani were both very defensive in the You Tube debate last week. I think that may have hurt Romney in Iowa. I guess we'll see how Huckabee takes the heat of the spotlight.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huckabee doing well in Iowa can only hurt Romney's chance of getting the nomination. Romney is basically banking on Super Tuesday, and if he fails to get much momentum I see him getting the vice presidential nomination at best.
Huckabee is doing remarkably well in the last two-three weeks, definately better than most anticipated. He fits very well into what Iowan Republicans would want in a president, but they may not vote for him because IMHO he does not have a chance. Alot may vote for him anyway, and that's bad news for Romney.
At this point I wish some of the unlikely candidates would pick a front runner and throw their support behind him. The Republicans need a strong showing in the primaries if they are going to put up a solid ticket.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I just hope Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate in the main election next year.
Are you hoping this, as it will further ensure a Democratic victory?
In the Republican debate Ron Paul said that he will NOT run as a third party candidate as he still closely identifies with classic Republican ideals.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I just hope Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate in the main election next year.
Are you hoping this, as it will further ensure a Democratic victory?
In the Republican debate Ron Paul said that he will NOT run as a third party candidate as he still closely identifies with classic Republican ideals.
You caught me.
Not that I would be terribly upset if Ron Paul were to pull off a surprising win. Of the Republicans, he's my favorite.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Republican Caucus in Iowa has a tendency to come in to the right of the party nationally. Pat Buchannan and Pat Robertson both had respectable showings in the Iowa Caucuses. Buchannan actually beat Bush in Iowa in '88.
This is true.
quote: So it's possible for Huckabee to be gaining in the polls related to the caucus and national commentators still not think he's a viable candidate.
Is Huckabee considered right of the party frontrunners? Most of the criticism I've seen about him from primary opponents has been related to raising taxes and going easy on illegal immigrants.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huckabee is fiscally moderate, and in some strange places socially moderate, but is Evangelically inclined and very conservative on some core issues such as Abortion.
Hence he is the choice of many Evangelicals, especially when compared to the "Mormon Romney" or the "Adulterous" Guiliani
I believe that he may be Young Earth Christian, or goes to great lengths not to make statements supporting Evolution or similar Old Earth sciences.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:At this point I wish some of the unlikely candidates would pick a front runner and throw their support behind him. The Republicans need a strong showing in the primaries if they are going to put up a solid ticket.
After Iowa. The second tier candidates won't drop out (unless they run out of money) before they at least see how they do in Iowa, but I'd say you'll see Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter drop out and support a candidate, and their two or three combined percentage points will go to whoever. It's hard to say when the others will drop out, it really depends on how everyone does in the early voting states, but I'd bet at least Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney and Paul make it to SuperTuesday without dropping. I leave McCain off that list because of his sagging numbers and the fact that his warchest has cobwebs in it, whereas the others are spending money like it's coming from a magic ATM. If he doesn't win Nevada, I think he'll be gone by Feb. 5th.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hence he is the choice of many Evangelicals, especially when compared to the "Mormon Romney" or the "Adulterous" Guiliani
Over the Thanksgiving holiday my very, very Christian cousins informed me that Huckabee was the only candidate they would vote for. If he doesn't win the nomination, they said they couldn't morally vote for ANY other candidate, and just wouldn't vote in the General next year.
They aren't necessary one issue voters, but Abortion is a litmus test for them, and if the candidate doesn't support anti-abortion, they won't get the vote. I'd say Huckabee is the shining hope for that crowd, and not having him in the race will leave a lot of those guys out in the cold.
(I think it's less Mormon Romney and Adulterous Giuliani (they ARE factors mind you) and more "Changes his mind on abortion" Romney and "Wants to murder babies" Giuliani, for a lot of evangelicals).
Also, you have to watch a different poll, and that one is asking voters what issues are most important to them. Obama's surge in Iowa and New Hampshire is interesting, because when you ask voters what they care about the most, more and more are choosing honesty, integrity and change, and Obama is railroading Hillary on those categories in the polls. She beats him in security and experience, but he's done a good job proving to them that those things aren't the most important. It's also why Democrats poll higher nationally, because people tend to trust Republicans more with national defense, but the economy is now the highest rated threat, and the people trust the Democrats more on that. Ironically, Giuliani polls highest on one thing, the War on Terror, and Romney has him beat on pretty much every other category, even Iraq. But Republicans have chosen that as their most important issue...for the moment. Incidentally I think that's his biggest weakness. He's going to get HAMMERED in the general on WOT issues, and I think Hillary would come out way ahead.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I just hope Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate in the main election next year.
Are you hoping this, as it will further ensure a Democratic victory?
In the Republican debate Ron Paul said that he will NOT run as a third party candidate as he still closely identifies with classic Republican ideals.
You caught me.
Not that I would be terribly upset if Ron Paul were to pull off a surprising win. Of the Republicans, he's my favorite.
Well Perot got Clinton elected, and Nadar got Bush elected so I guess it's the Democrat's turn to get an election handed to them because of a third party.
I think a McCain/Romney ticket could do REALLY well. Both candidates are Republican, but both appeal to alot of moderates. I really don't agree with Giulliani's whole, "I'm the only one who can beat Hillary" schtick.
Huckabee right now does a very good job appearing conservative, and stating his views without sounding like an idiot. In the last debate I hope Romney picked up some tips on how to discuss his faith without assuming it has to be a liability.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really don't agree with Giulliani's whole, "I'm the only one who can beat Hillary" schtick.
I don't agree with it either. But it also heartens me, as it seems to suggest that the republicans aren't even considering Obama, which could lead to their downfall if he gets the nomination.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the sake of a truly better America, I hope the electoral process/two party system/quality of candidates change drastically.
For the sake of a realistically good outcome of next year's election, I hope Obama pulls it off. I'm so terribly tired of voting against someone rather than for someone Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] They aren't necessary one issue voters, but Abortion is a litmus test for them, and if the candidate doesn't support anti-abortion, they won't get the vote.
Doesn't that by definition make them one issue voters?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] They aren't necessary one issue voters, but Abortion is a litmus test for them, and if the candidate doesn't support anti-abortion, they won't get the vote.
Doesn't that by definition make them one issue voters?
Not necessarily. As long as two candidates share the same opinion on the abortion issue, then I'm assuming that Lyrhawn's relatives would consider other issues when determining who is worthy of their vote. For example, Romney's and Huckabee's stated positions on abortion are nearly identical. So the deal-breaker for them isn't really the issue of abortion, but whether or not they believe Romney is trustworthy. Romney's opponents have successfully been able to paint his change of positions as politically motivated and insincere (which is very unfortunate for Romney--I personally support him and hope he can win the nomination.)
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there is a terror alert near the election, will people baselessly speculate that it was "convenient"? If they do, will America buy into it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm a terrorist and I want the most media coverage in exchange for my life, when will I plan an attack?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there were that degree of machination going on, I would have thought they'd bag Osama bin-Laden right before the 04 election. But maybe they are playing a deeper game than I imagine.
Getting back to Ron Paul, and I mistaken in thinking you [Javert] are not pro-life? Because he's for the whole overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huckabee will definitely take the Bible belt over Romney. A Mormon vs. an ordained Baptist preacher? No contest.
(Please note I do not endorse this attitude - personally I am much more concerned with things like, you know, their public record and what type of leader they would be than what house of worship they attend, I'm just pointing out what will happen in the deep south if the nomination comes down between Huckabee and Romney.)
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: If there were that degree of machination going on, I would have thought they'd bag Osama bin-Laden right before the 04 election. But maybe they are playing a deeper game than I imagine.
Getting back to Ron Paul, and I mistaken in thinking you [Javert] are not pro-life? Because he's for the whole overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Just to be clear, I'm not a conspiracy theorist who thinks all terror warnings are just there to control Americans. I do, however, recognize the possibility of such a thing happening.
As for Ron Paul, yes I am pro-choice. But I also don't vote on one issue. Overturning Roe v. Wade in itself wouldn't bother me too much. It would in the fact that I think those are decisions that the people involved should make for themselves. But I don't like abortion.
Now, if he (or anyone) overturned Roe v. Wade and then did absolutely nothing to actually address the problems that lead to the need for abortion, then I would be upset.
And this is really all besides the point, as I'm a registered Democrat and I don't see Paul getting into the general election as the GOP candidate against Clinton, which is the only situation I can really see where I would vote for him.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Huckabee will definitely take the Bible belt over Romney. A Mormon vs. an ordained Baptist preacher? No contest.
(Please note I do not endorse this attitude - personally I am much more concerned with things like, you know, their public record and what type of leader they would be than what house of worship they attend, I'm just pointing out what will happen in the deep south if the nomination comes down between Huckabee and Romney.)
The question is, how much of the South qualifies as "bible belt" and "deep south" nowadays. It seems to me that ultra-fundamental evangelicism is on the decline, even in the South (where I'm from,) as evidenced by the decline in televangelism and diminishing influence of the Southern Baptist Convention. This is coupled with the increasing urbanization of the South, and since urban areas, even in the South, tend to be less conservative, I'm wondering whether the "Bible-thumpers" influence is being overestimated. Just throwing it out there.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that the SBC was losing it's influence not due to lessening of evangelicalism, but to the non-demonimationals and other sects of evangelical Christianity. However, I really can't think of where I got that impression from.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, the rise of other brands of evangelicism is part of the decline of the SBC, but in my experience, the most popular newer evangelical movements don't focus nearly as much on the evils of Mormonism as does the SBC. Thus, in respect to the issue that Belle raised, the hold that anti-Mormon evangelicals have on the "deep South" and "Bible Belt" appears to me to be waning.
This is not to say that the local Assemblies of God megachurch is suddenly going to join hands with the Mormons singing Kumbaya, but they aren't necessarily going to rule out voting for a Mormon based on religion alone. If anything will doom Romney, it's the constant flip-flop label given to him by his enemies. It worked very well for Kerry, and Republican voters seem to think that changing your position to one that you actually agree with is a much greater sin than simply disagreeing.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am loving this election, however, as a republican, I am sad to see us loose. I think we will loose.
Huckabee will probably be a one state man. His fund raising is increasing--he's adopted Paul's tactic of showing donors and amount raised in real time. However, he won't raise enough money for a strong showing in super Tuesday.
He is relying on media hype, and his charm and evangelical appeal will only last so long. Plus he has real problems with his tax record. Mccain is dropping fast. I don't think his attack on Paul in the debate will give him much of a boost, and he is out of money.
Fred is not gaining any traction. That leaves Gulianni and Romney with commanding leads, a lot of cash, but not much enthusiasm. One of them will probably get the "anti-democrat/Hillary" vote and win the primaries. Paul will be in the long haul just because he is so fiscally responsible, is raising wads of cash (between 12-16 million this quarter), and has dedicated supporters. However, he probably won't break 10% of the votes.
He will be set up for a strong third party run--stealing both democratic and republican votes.
Paul throws in a true unknown into this election. No candidate, except Paul and Huckabee, really has enthusiastic supporters. We will once again have an election where people are voting against Hillary or Obama, and that won't turn out the votes needed to win. Not this time.
Plus, even if Paul does not go third party, his supporters will not vote for another Republican. We (I include myself) think the republican party has lost the way. So you will either get a massive write in for Paul (my plan), or the supporters will vote for the libertarian, constitutionalist, or green party.
That small percentage (2%-7%)will break the republican candidate--if he is not already broken. Romney, Guilianni, McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson are wasted votes. They've already lost.
***
My dream scenario is that Paul's strength on illegal immigration will become a huge support for him after the univision debate. He will be the only candidate that talks about ending birthright citizenship, brining troops home from Iraq and North Korea for our borders, and not accepting any type of amnesty. Strangely he is not for a wall or deportation. He just wants to end incentives for illegal immigration.
He could get a lot of boos from that debate and hostility from democrats. Ironically that is one area where I disagree with Paul, but illegal immigration is a sleeper issue for lots of republicans. If he comes out strong and receives bad press from pro undocumented worker groups, more republicans might look at him.
Then if he get 5-6 million on Dec 16th (bringing his total to 16 million the quarter), the Ron Paul blimp takes off, he does 4th place in Iowa and 3rd place in New Hampshire, he could hit Super Tuesday with enough momentum and money to really shake things up.
That is my best case scenario. But even that won't propel him as THE FRONTRUNNER, but weirder things have happened. Maybe Republicans will realize he is the only candidate that can win and will start supporting him.
If it is not Paul, the republicans will for sure loose. And it is looking like it won't be Paul.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the wane of the power of the SBC and other organizations but Squicky is right - that's because of so many non-denominational Christian churches that are so popular now. Not because the people living here are likely to vote less conservative.
Yes, there are larger urban areas in the south that will trend toward the liberal side of the spectrum, but I would still be shocked to see Alabama and Mississippi vote Romney over Huckabee. As for what would happen in the general election, I have no idea. That's where the urbanization of the Southern states could make a bigger impact, but if we're strictly talking Republican primaries, I do not see Deep South Republicans voting for a Mormon candidate, in my opinion. Things haven't changed all that much.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope I can trust Ron Paul at his word that he is not going to break off a third party. If you want to see someone clubbed with "flip flop", go ahead and keep talking about it.
Hey, maybe Al Gore will jump back in the race, as long as we're dreaming. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you consider the Bible Belt these days? Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi? Midwest? Plains States?
I'll go looking for some opinion polls if you guys tell me what states you want looked up.
Interestingly, the most recent polls I've seen show that Barack Obama beats every Republican candidate, and Hillary loses to every Republican candidate. It's two weeks old, and I don' know what the +/- is, but I'm surprised it isn't being talked about more.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find an interesting place to watch as the campaign unfolds is the prediction markets. The basic idea is that people buy shares on the probability of certain events occurring and essentially make money if they sell their shares as the probability of that event occurring. Since actual money is on the line, sometimes the predictions can be quite different from polls.
One example is http://www.intrade.com and they seem to paint a rather different picture about Hilary Clinton's chances.
quote:I hope I can trust Ron Paul at his word that he is not going to break off a third party. If you want to see someone clubbed with "flip flop", go ahead and keep talking about it.
I think the best thing for the republicans is if he goes third. The way I see it is Ron Paul's supporters have already left the other republican candidates. There are enough republicans who support Paul that if he doesn't run third, they will boycott the other republican candidates. They will write in Paul or vote a third party--either way, the republicans will loose.
HOWEVER, if he goes third, there is a possibility that a third party Paul would attract more democrats then republicans. There are a LOT of dems who are angry that they voted to end the war and ended up with a surge.
If Paul goes third, there is a possibility, however slight, he could win OR there is a possibility that he would draw enough dem votes to offset the loss of republicans.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What do you consider the Bible Belt these days? Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi? Midwest? Plains States?
I'll go looking for some opinion polls if you guys tell me what states you want looked up.
While I haven't read the whole article, just on skimming this wikipedia entry I agree with it for the most part.
quote:In presidential elections, the Bible Belt states of Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia have voted for the Republican candidate in all elections since 1980.[6] Prior to the 1960s the majority of these states generally voted for the Democratic candidate after the formation of the modern Democratic party.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
